The road up to Molly the Cat's house is even more rustic than the stretch up to my cabin. It is nice to have the subaru in such circumstances. Others have to take a running start at the muddy hill, and often have to give it a number of tries. I have no such issue.
Speaking of issues, who in their right mind would actually try to get laws enacted because they don't like a restaurant's way of doing business? If you don't like it--don't go there. I'm concerned that the NOW has caught a sort of group sickness, a contagious disorder of mind and emotion.
They want rules to ensure that people can't bring kids to Hooters. It gets old-this thing of strangers wanting to dictate the decisions of parents. Somehow I sense absolutely no sincerity in their affected concern for the tender little psyches of children.
WARNING******please blindfold your children or remove them from the room before viewing this image******
Oh, the humanity!!!
It is easy to see how these two women serving up Buffalo wings and fries could forever traumatize the youth of the nation. I think these terrible criminals hail from Tampa Florida--your town could be next!!!!
What is clear is that their basic premise is that it is wrong that some people are more attractive to most people than are others, and further, that it is a crime against humanity to in any way profit from this natural resource. If you accept that reasoning--that it is wrong for perceived beauty to be used in any way for gain or satisfaction--- then it must also be wrong for those born with intellectual talent to benefit from using their above average intelligence.
In fact, if one's natural physical advantages are off limits for exploitation in any way, then one's musical, artistic and athletic talents should also be off limits.
The case that Hooters is tacky could be made, but so could the case that many personal injury lawyers are shameless. Don't go there. Don't employ them. Or in the case of John Edwards types, get rid of judges who don't throw their cases out of court.
It appears to me that the National Organization of (alleged) Women has run out of real substantive issues and has to search for things they can twist which will give them power and notoriety while screwing with the lives of strangers. People would not work at Hooters unless they wanted the employment--some even like it. I've hardly ever gone in the place but the people I saw working there looked kind of cheerful. I'm sure that varies. Many work there because it was the best shot they had at making ends meet. All that is actually irrelevant.
Anything that acknowledges the attraction of most males toward females, and the fact that the initial draw is the way the female looks, is going to be under attack. It is simply how it works. Try as you may, I doubt you can train the "knee jerk" reaction of healthy hetero males toward good looking females out of the human race. And it has been being tried for awhile. We don't have a safer, more polite, or more moral society as a result. Just a lot more neurotic and confused.
There is a logic and simple natural inclination to what promotes attraction both of male toward female and vice versa. It is not bad. It's what it is, and often quite a thrill. No one wants to admit that females are attracted to males who project power and security. It is true. It is friggin nature and it makes sense.
Of course it pisses me off that the guy with the yacht and a billion dollars has more 20 somethings falling all over him than I ever had, but it is not all just cultural brain washing. It makes sense and I understand it. If you have wealth and power and are a fairly personable guy, of course you will do better than a nice guy who is destitute.
It's from the old days when someone had to protect against riffraff--back before tyrants cautioned against "taking the law into your own hands" concerning self defense. For the species to multiply you have to provide a safe environment for the baby machines. That is rather obvious. And you have to have some drive that induces you to set that machine into action and to keep it safe. That's why some women can take a guy's breath away just by looking so damned good. It happens. It is power.
That's not to say some women couldn't kick your butt into next week. Not too many who are 8 1/2 months pregnant would do so well at that, or want to.
I actually think what NOW is doing is far more demeaning to women than anything good looking women whose physicality helped get them the job are doing. NOW is accusing those women of being too dumb and weak to know how to take care of themselves. So they step in, not by request of those chicks, but often over their protests. Explain that.
Forcing the rest of humanity to make choices according to your mandates and prejudices is not my idea of liberation. NOW promotes oppression, as does every other outfit which seeks to curb liberty because they have decided they can run your life better than you or nature.
Oh my goodness. I have missed something somewhere in the media. I had no idea there was an issue with Hooters.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "I actually think what NOW is doing is far more demeaning to women than anything good looking women whose physicality helped get them the job are doing." Yep!
Seems like this initiative began in San Francisco--not sure. Somewhere in California. I guess they are trying to make it state wide, but maybe will settle for SF. SF is big on such things--ban on happy meals, buying pets, etc. Always something afloat.
ReplyDelete